For background & reference, I was in IBM-dominated environments from
1969 - 1994; during that time, I had roles such that I needed to apply
such updates to several manuals (though not all of the manuals for a
given installation).
The labor involved is, admittedly, tedious; it is easy to get distracted
by nearly anything. :-)
On the other hand, I found the process one of the best available for
determining where changes (for a new product release, for example)
really made a difference -- or where IBM actually responded to a request
for clarification of a document. (IBM also had "Reader Comment Forms"
at the back of each manual. I used to send so many in that I'd merely
copy the RCF, since I'd run out otherwise.) It's one thing to see a
mention of some purported "imporovement" in a product, but it's in the
documentation changes that one sees the details.
That said, the whole process wasn't used when (for example) a completely
new "version" of the software came out: in that case, the manuals were
replaced wholesale (and often, the way the documentation was divided up
was changed, as well). Further, there were cases (such as the migration
from MVS/XA to MVS/ESA) where IBM decided that it had been a little too
free about making "private interfaces" public (by documenting them in
manuals that anyone could buy); in such cases, it was not at all rare
for the new set of manuals to have less information about certain topics
than the old set. (And some of us would retain old manuals for this
reason.)
So: I don't have a simple recommendation -- merely my experiences. I
suspect that given the significantly smaller volume of material, that
the idea of applying changes might well make sense for those applying
them; on the other hand, it *is* a tad annoying to open a brand-new
manual, only to find that it comes with half a dozen "update packets"
that need to be applied to it in sequence before you can start using
it.
I will point out one other thing: at the time in question, at least, I
was informed (by an IBMer) that IBM was the world's 2nd largest
publisher (in volume of documents) -- number 1 was the US Government.
It is quite likely that the smaller scale of Lucent RABU's operation
would render the approach infeasible. I'm nearly certain that Lucent
wouldn't want to have both completely new manuals & update packages.
david
-- David H. Wolfskill david@dhw.vip.best.com As a computing professional, I believe it would be unethical for me to advise, recommend, or support the use (save possibly for personal amusement) of any product that is or depends on any Microsoft product. - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message. Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>